ARTICLES ![](http://library.vu.edu.pk/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/000100A/http/web.archive.org/web/20040202085606im_/http:/=2fusers.starpower.net/mk26/1x1.gif)
A Tale of Two Cities: NYC's Operation Atlas and DC's Operation Atlas Shrugged (March 29, 2003). (The "author's cut") You also can see the Washington Post's "editor's cut" here
Why cameras don't belong in the jury room. Washington Post (Dec. 22, 2002)
Boyz 'N the Neck -about the racial crisis in my home town, American Lawyer (March 1996)
LIGHTER PIECES
Regulating Wall Street Billionaires - Hear me on Public Radio's "Marketplace" (subscription required)
BLOGS/SITES OF NOTE
General Interest:
Israel and Other Jewish Topics:
JTA.org - Global Jewish news and features
Kesher Talk -- an excellent blog on Judaism, Jewish culture and politics, Middle East affairs, etc.
|
An eclectic blog by a published part-time journalist and full-time lawyer containing articles I've written, both humorous and serious, and commentary on news events, the media, international affairs, pop culture and other topics.
______________________________________________________________
Saturday, Jan. 31, 2004
* * *
The times call for an urgent assessment of what we are being subjected to and for a quite new kind of training to deal with it. This training must not be limited to professionals. As in all modern conflicts, the entire community is at risk; it must therefore be familiarized with the propagandists' arts and trained to protect itself.
The stakes, as history has shown, are high. The successes of the Fascist/Marxist language machine in making the Jew vermin and tyranny democracy have been well learned by contemporary adversaries. But the angels can fight back. One may draw encouragement, for example, from the initial success of Western liberalism in combating so much that is prejudiced and discriminatory in our language.
Many people, yours truly included, have been fighting this battle, generally to little effect. It's worth continuing because the purportedly objective major media outlets ought to be pressured to defend their presentation of the news. But those who are pre-disposed to seeing the Jewish state as a racist, colonialist villain will continue to do so no matter what we do or say. The analogy to Western liberalism isn't very compelling because those on the left, who tend to dominate the major media outlets in the U.S., were sympathetic to the minorities' arguments from the outset. That is decidedly not the case with respect to the arguments of Israel's supporters.
Otherwise, the pretty boy is relentlessly positive - as he says, 'If you're looking for the best candidate to attack the other Democrats, I'm not your guy,' which is itself a not so subtle attack on the other candidates. But eventually the condescension grinds you down. Even Democrats, even in a broken-down North Country mill town, don't want to be told they're helpless children who can't function in the world without Edwards swaddling them in a cocoon of government regulations. And, after a while, you begin to notice that while he's got policies to address the fine print on your MasterCard statement, he's got nothing to say about the great issues of the day, aside from taking action to prevent 'war profiteering' by Bush cronies. In the crush as he was leaving, I asked him what he would do about Iraq.
'We need to get the UN in there,' he said.
'But they were in there. They pulled out because it was too dangerous.'
'We need to get Nato in there,' he said.
'But 21 out of the 34 countries with troops on the ground are, in fact, Nato members.'
'Hey, that's what I love about these town hall meetings,' he said, shaking my hand. 'You get to hear from the people.' If Edwards were in a presidential debate with Bush, there wouldn't be a lot of questions on Visa card rates but there would be one or two on Iraq, and his platitudes wouldn't pass muster.
(Apologies to my friend Dhruv, an early Edwards supporter.)
Thursday, Jan. 29, 2004
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, speaking to reporters in Washington, condemned the attack.
"Once again terrorists have killed innocent people," he said. "At the same time they have struck a blow once more to the aspirations of the Palestinian people to have a homeland of their own.
"This kind of action must stop, and once again I implore the Palestinian leaders, especially Prime Minister Abu Ala, to do everything in their power to ostracize these terrorists, to go after them, and to deal with this terrorist activity."
Mr. Powell said the peace plan known as the road map "is still there," but that the longer the parties "cannot get moving" because of terrorist activity, the more difficult it will be to achieve the plan's timetable.
The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, in a statement issued after the bombing, appealed to Israelis and Palestinians to "rise above feelings of anger and vengeance, however natural, and to devote all their energies to negotiating a true and lasting peace in which two peoples will live side by side, each in their own state."
Powell correctly tells the Palestinians their terrorism is hurting their cause and he lays the onus on acting where it belongs, on the Palestinian Authority. Annan, by contrast, recites more moral equivalence drivel.
* * *
The Australian Open. It's too bad the Safin-Agassi semifinal match is being broadcast at 11 pm Eastern time tonight. I'm pulling for the veteran, but if Safin plays the way he's been doing this tournament, he'll outpower Agassi. Maybe Safin will be worn out from his long matches and have an off night. An Agassi fan can hope....
Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004
Polish prez: No visa requirement for Poles. Pushing the bounds of political propriety, President Aleksander Kwasniewski persistently protested the requirement that Poles obtain visas to visit the U.S., in a joint appearance with Bush. (Bush was noncommittal, but committed the faux pas of saying there were "thousands" of Polish-Americans when the number runs in the millions.)
I can understand their ire. They belong to NATO, they're about to join the EU, and they're supporting the U.S. in Iraq with their blood. What's more, if the visa requirement is meant to safeguard against terrorism, let's be real: overwhelmingly Catholic Poland has a negligible Muslim population. An Islamist terrorist is far more likely to come from Britain or France.
* * *
![](http://library.vu.edu.pk/cgi-bin/nph-proxy.cgi/000100A/http/web.archive.org/web/20040202085606im_/http:/=2fusers.starpower.net/mk26/1x1.gif) |
Positive signs of Polish anti-Semitism on the wane. That seems to be the message of articles like this. For a time now, there has been news of positive Polish interest in the Jewish culture that flourished there before the war. But I've found it hard to discount the historical strength of Polish anti-Semitism, as discussed in this piece by me (scroll halfway down the page).
|
|
Sunday, Jan. 25, 2003
Robert Kagan has a most intelligent discussion of the U.S. and the question of international legitimacy. It should be read in its entirety, but here's an excerpt:
But can the United States cede some power to Europe without putting American security, and indeed Europe's and the entire liberal democratic world's security, at risk in the process? Here lies the rub. For even with the best of intentions, the United States cannot enlist the cooperation of Europeans if there is no common assessment of the nature of global threats today, and of the means that must be employed to meet them. But it is precisely this gap in perception that has driven the United States and Europe apart in the post-cold-war world.
If it is true, as the British diplomat Robert Cooper suggests, that international legitimacy stems from shared values and a shared history, does such commonality still exist within the West now that the cold war has ended? For while the liberal trans-Atlantic community still shares much in common, the philosophical schism on the fundamental questions of world order may now be overwhelming those commonalities. It is hard to imagine the crisis of legitimacy being resolved as long as this schism persists. For even if the United States were to fulfill its part of the bargain, and grant the Europeans the influence they crave, would the Europeans, with their very different perception of the world, fulfill theirs?
As long as Europeans and Americans do not share a common view of the threat posed by terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, they will not join in a common strategy. Nor will Europeans accord the United States legitimacy when it seeks to address those threats by itself, and by what it regards as sometimes the only means possible, force.
And what, then, is the United States to do? Should Americans, in the interest of trans-Atlantic harmony, try to alter their perceptions of global threats to match that of their European friends? To do so would be irresponsible. Not only American security but the security of the liberal democratic world depends today, as it has depended for the past half-century, on American power. Even Europeans, in moments of clarity, know that is true.
* * *
The anti-American (or, at least, anti-Bush) view. Serge Schmemann, now with the International Herald Tribune, reviews several books in this vein in today's NYT book review. While Brookings scholar Ivo Daalder's book, America Unbound, sounds worthwhile, Schmemann refuses to reject French historian Emmanuel Todd as an "extreme or isolated voice":
A French historian and anthropologist trained at Cambridge University in England and descended from Jews who were refugees in America, Todd says he used to see the United States as a model, as his ''subconscious safety net.'' Now, he declares, it is solely a ''predator,'' living way beyond its means, racking up video-game victories over defenseless nations and undermining human rights. Nobody escapes Todd's jilted fury -- not the American woman, ''a castrating, threatening figure,'' and not American Jews, who have ''fallen into the disturbing, not to say neurotic, cult of the Holocaust.'' Todd's solace is also his main thesis, that American power is fast waning because of the country's profligate spending: ''Let the present America expend what remains of its energy, if that is what it wants to do, on 'war on terrorism' -- a substitute battle for the perpetuation of a hegemony that it has already lost.'' This is easy to dismiss as the rant of Old Europe (surprise: Todd's book was a best seller in France). But that would miss the point: his sense of betrayal is widely shared around the world, even in places the White House likes to portray as friends. Alas, I have heard too many people of good will express profound disappointment with the United States to reject Todd as an extreme or isolated voice.
Clearly, there is no "common assessment of the nature of global threats today" in such views, to borrow Robert Kagan's phrase. Still worse, there are not even any good intentions on the part of the critics. The problem for the so-called multilateralists is that so many of those who now hate and fear America are, like Todd, raving anti-Semites, who either see 9/11 as no big deal or, again worse, see it as something that the U.S. deserved.
The left does not ask why the KKK and white militia groups "hate us so," and I have no interest in asking why certain French academics hate us so. There are reasoned critiques to be made of Bush's policies, but those who wish to make them should renounce those critics who hate America (and Israel) for all the wrong reasons.
* * *
* * *
Cash only? It sounds like the IRS should pay "Dr. Dot" a visit.
Monday, Jan. 19, 2003
Too stupid and hateful to make common cause with French Jews on the issue of the ban against head-coverings in school, here's what the French Muslim leaders are saying (from jta. org):
Muslim speakers at a Paris rally against a proposal to ban Islamic scarves in French schools attacked Jews and Israel. Addressing around 15,000 demonstrators in Paris on Saturday, Mohamed Latreche, president of the Party of French Muslims, described Zionism as “an apartheid ideology that we should fight like we fight Nazism.” Latreche also attacked President Jacques Chirac, claiming that Chirac does “everything for Jews, but nothing for Muslims,” while describing the leading French daily Le Monde as “a Zionist paper controlled by LICRA,” a respected anti-racist organization that has many Jewish members. Similar demonstrations against the proposed ban were held in other French cities on Saturday and in a number of foreign capitals.
* * *
What can one say about such barbarism? One can only hope that such attacks will lead the populace to turn on the "insurgents" (or "militants," as one of the networks referred to them yesterday) and report them to Coalition forces.
Thurs., Jan. 15, 2003
Can settler fanaticism constitute a form of child abuse? This piece in today's NYT, " Embattled Jewish Settlers in Gaza Pray for Miracles," troubled me. Fifteen IDF soldiers have lost their lives protecting Kfar Darom, in Gaza, according to the article. Five settlers have been killed by Palestinians.
I lay the blame where it belongs: on Palestinian terrorists. But, at some point, is it reasonable -- indeed, ethical -- for parents to force their children to suffer so? These children likely have no say in whether to live in such a war zone and, in any event, they lack the competence to make such judgments.
Here's an excerpt from the story:
To help hold the line, Ms. Cohen and her family recently returned to Kfar Darom. They left two years ago, after an attack on a school bus left three of the children maimed. One daughter lost both legs. Another lost a foot; a son lost a leg. All are undergoing psychological and physical therapy.
"Everybody's scared here," Ms. Cohen said, but the children "know they have to overcome it."
And later in the piece:
Parents here say children have adapted to the fighting, though there was some bed-wetting when the violence began. Many have nightmares of Palestinian intruders. But counselors from outside the settlement have helped, the parents said.
The children know to run to the nearest house when shelling starts. Every house has a reinforced concrete shelter, though the settlers say they are rarely used.
I understand the settlers' position and their belief that they are defending the State of Israel. And, taken to an extreme, my argument could lead to the abandonment of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv by Israeli Jews because the Palestinians have seen to it that no place in Israel is safe. But the Gaza isn't Jerusalem or Tel Aviv. And if the parents want to remain in Gaza, perhaps their children should be relocated.
* * *
Quote of the Day:
"People say I've slid to the right. Well, can you blame me? One of the biggest malfeasances of the left right now is the mislabeling of Hitler. Quit saying this guy [Bush] is Hitler. Hitler is Hitler. That's the quintessential evil in the history of the universe, and we're throwing it around on MoveOn.org to win a contest. That's grotesque to me."
* * *
Is France getting bad p.r. in Israel? Dress it up anyway you like, France has not been a friend to Israel.
* * *
Wed., Jan. 14, 2004
Warning signs about the economy. Not surprisingly, Bush's deficits signal danger ahead. Bill Gross knows bond markets like no one's business. We disregard him at our peril.
Sunday, Jan. 11, 2004
The entry of Turkey into the E.U. Tom Friedman makes a strong argument in favor of the move.
* * *
* * *
* * *
Saturday, Jan. 10, 2004
It's easy to poke fun at Iran, China and France (while ignoring America's flaws), but Steyn does it so well.
* * *
More proof (as if it were needed) that Sharpton is a (bad) joke. HIs disdain for even minimal accountability and compliance with tax and recordkeeping rules is appalling. His record in this area should, by itself, disqualify him from qualifying for federal matching funds.
* * *
"Space, 1999"? That was the name of a bad science fiction TV series years back about a space station on the moon. Unless we find a buried obelisk on the moon, a lunar base seems likely to be a huge waste of money, not much better than the International Space Station. Unmanned missions are better, cheaper, safer means of exploring space. Hank Stuever has a fun piece on what a lunar colony might look like.
* * *
* * *
Check out these three letters in yesterday's WaPo (the first by me). Note that the author of the third letter appears to think that only Israel's supporters should be upset by Palestinian terrorism; in other words, it's not terrorism if its directed at Israelis. As a friend also noted, Muslims (and others) would have reason to object to names like "the Crusaders" if political-terrorist groups with those names were going around blowing up civilians.
Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2004
But quartet members say they have been rebuffed when they ask the United States to take action, from setting up international monitors and pressing harder for reforms by the Palestinian security forces to more actively helping the new prime minister, Ahmed Qureia.
The Europeans and UNniks are best situated to press the Palestinians for reforms, but that's not really what they're interested in.
* * *
"World Jewry Is Not an Amen Chorus." Sure, Arthur Hertzberg and other Jewish critics of Israeli policy have a right to speak out, but Hertzberg appears to suggest that diaspora Jews should have as much, or nearly as much, say as Israeli Jews in how Israel conducts its affairs. But those of us who don't live there, those of us who don't face the threat of being blown up with our loved ones as we go about our daily lives, ought to recognize that we don't live with the consequences of how Israel is governed in the same way that those who live there do. And while it's fine to criticize Israeli policies with which we disagree, those who support the Zionist enterprise should be careful to avoid aiding Israel's enemies. Too often, American Jews who harshly criticize Israel forget which party is deliberately slaughtering innocents in an unprecedented war of terrorism.
* * *
A biting piece about the Bush girls. Chelsea never got press like this.
* * *
"The Tender Trap." A hearbreaking piece by Clare Ansberry from today's WSJ. Since it's only available online by subscription, here's a long excerpt:
PITTSBURGH -- Donald Tullis, 84 years old, wakes each morning in the room he shares with his youngest son, their beds only feet apart.
He ties his son's tennis shoes, helps him with his pants and suspenders, and shaves him. He makes cereal the way Tim, 49 and autistic, likes, with water rather than milk, and packs a hamburger, apple and cherry pie in a brown paper bag. At 8:30 a.m., a van arrives at the curb and honks, ready to take Tim to a training center for developmentally disabled adults, where he learns how to fold his clothes and write words on a chalkboard.
For a few hours it is quiet in their small apartment, save for news updates from the radio or TV, or traffic noises outside. While his son is away, Mr. Tullis rinses the dishes and makes their beds. When Tim returns shortly before 3 p.m., Mr. Tullis pops some popcorn for his son and gives him the day's junk mail to sort through, maintaining the routines so critical to those with autism. They share a quiet dinner in a tiny kitchen, Mr. Tullis reminding his son to use his spoon for mashed potatoes and fork for meat. Both father and son are big men, though Tim is far larger than his father, having outgrown the 44-inch-waist pants that Mr. Tullis now wears.
If Lawrence Welk is on, the two watch it together, Tim smiling and rocking in his favorite rocking chair, so worn that it's held together with a wire hanger and nails. On other nights, they listen to records of Scottish and Irish singers, or read. Mr. Tullis prefers mysteries, his son magazines, flipping through them for both the pictures and the occasional familiar word.
Mr. Tullis's wife, "the Missus" he calls her, a tiny lady named Gert, died a few years ago. Since then, Mr. Tullis has assumed total care of his son. Tim adores his father, his few sentences often about Daddy. Likewise his father, a soft-spoken man, beams when he talks of the progress his son, once declared a "mental defective," has made. A few years ago, Tim received an award and plaque for his spirit and determination from the Ross Center, where he goes each day. His father, then 81, attended his son's first award ceremony.
His biggest concern is what will happen to Tim when he dies. Although Mr. Tullis doesn't suffer from any major medical problems, he must deal with the normal course of aging. He shuffles when he walks, wears a hearing aid and has arthritis, which swells his hands and causes pain in his back. "Eighty-four is getting up there," says Mr. Tullis. "The hard part is that it's going to be harder on him than me."
After a lifetime of caring for their developmentally disabled children, a generation of parents are reaching the same painful crossroads, realizing that they can't do this much longer. During the 1950s and 1960s, these pioneering mothers and fathers were among the first to shun institutional care, insisting on a place for their children in society rather than on its fringes. They were a major force behind laws requiring schools to allow disabled children into mainstream classrooms or to set up special programs for them.
In raising their children at home, these parents had little support from outside organizations, leaving them largely on their own to be parent, nurse and teacher for children with then-baffling conditions. They saved the government hundreds of millions of dollars in expensive care. They also set the standard that subsequent generations of parents have embraced. Today, about 76% of the 4.3 million people with developmental disabilities live at home, a quarter of them cared for by a family member who is at least 60 years old. Most of the rest live in supervised settings or on their own.
That dedication enriched lives and created a symbiosis between parent and child that strengthened over time, but that time likewise makes untenable. Now in their 60s, 70s and 80s, some with weak hearts or limbs and others coming off bypass surgeries or chemotherapy, these aging parents are realizing that carrying a disabled adult child down steps is dangerous. Tending to breathing tubes throughout the night is exhausting. These parents' lifelong concern with their child's mortality is coupled with a growing awareness of their own.
Yet for the most part, these 670,000 older parents -- those 60 years plus -- continue because they are afraid not to. Relinquishing care of a fragile child prone to violent seizures or terror of the unfamiliar is difficult even as it becomes physically harder to provide. And in spite of the progress of the past 40 years, there are still limited options for the disabled once they pass through mandated education programs, which generally stop when they reach the age of 21.
Nationwide, 80,000 families are on waiting lists for government-funded residential services such as in-home help; some have been waiting for a decade. The figure doesn't include untold others -- by some estimates 40% of caregivers -- who haven't asked for service because they don't know it's available. In some cases, bad past experiences keep families from reaching out for help. Years ago, Tim spent three months in a state mental-health institution because he was eating uncontrollably; he came home with unexplained sores and bruises. He apparently had been bullied by others there who ordered the then-26-year-old man to tie their shoes.
The tandem needs of an aging parent caring for an aging disabled child are beginning to draw attention. The Administration on Aging of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and The Arc, a nonprofit organization for the developmentally disabled based in Silver Spring, Md., are in the early stages of developing a program to give help and counselling for older caregivers. In the meantime, these parents continue dressing, bathing and feeding their children, concerned more about their offspring's welfare than their own needs.
Sunday, Jan. 4, 2004
Congrats, NASA. Doubtless, the Euros will secretly resent this technological triumph, coming on the heels of their own failed mission to the red planet.
* * *
Saturday, Jan. 3, 2004
"It's Just Football, Not Jihad," Ruben Navarrette's piece in today's WaPo, falls more than a few yards short of goal. First, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, as a private organization, is free to criticize speech with which it disagrees. Navarrette can call that political correctness, but it's not an infringement on anyone's rights to free speech, contrary to the writer's suggestion. Second, Rabbi Cooper of the Wiesenthal Center is not claiming he was "injured" by the Islamist names taken by the football teams in the sense that many Native Americans find the name "Redskins" offensive. Instead, he is arguing that such names glorify terrorists, which only encourages more terrorism. That is a reasonable position. I also would ask Navarrette how he would feel about teams named "The KKK" and "White Supremacy?"
* * *
A fun topic: some thoughts on recent movies. It's nice to change up and write on less weighty matters every now and then. Here then are some thoughts on the current and recent cinema:
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King: A fine ending to Peter Jackson's adaptation of the Tolkien Trilogy. (Note: I suspect that most people who wouldn't like the books won't care for the movies, either). It's a tribute to Jackson that the books' fans have thrilled to the movies, despite some liberties taken with the original material. I liked one plot change concerning Gollum, Frodo and Sam in Mordor, which I won't give away. But, as I recall, the last battle scene in the film was added by Jackson. I think this was a bad choice for two reasons: First, the book showed that saber rattling alone can be useful; in other words, armies sometimes can achieve their objectives simply by standing ready to fight. (Sometimes, of course, war is necessary, as was the case with the defense of Gondor.) Second, without the final war scene and a few cuts elsewhere, there would have been time to include the hobbits' return to the Shire and their dealing with Saruman. This would have shown the characters' growth through war, and reinforced the theme that wars carry unforeseen consequences, some of which can be undone, some of which cannot.
Lost in Translation: A subtle, nearly perfect little film. It's amazing that Scarlett Johansson (spelling?) is so good so young. And Bill Murray demonstrates that he can really act.
Mystic River: A very good movie, with outstanding acting. It seems the studio has put Tim Robbins up for best supporting actor Oscar honors, with Sean Penn up for best actor. Tim Robbins has the more difficult role and triumphs with it. He should be up for best actor, not best supporting. The film's one flaw: there's a plot premise whose acceptance is essential, yet hard to believe.
T3: The action was fun but the story -- how do I put this delicately? -- sucked. After making the ability to change the future through free choice a central theme of the Terminator movies, this film took exactly the opposite tack. Very sloppy, story-wise.
Thursday, Jan. 1, 2004
* * *
Israel's expansion plans in the Golan Heights. I'm less troubled by such plans than with expansion in places like the Gaza strip. Israel has security needs vis-a-vis Syria, and Palestinian populations aren't involved. Nevertheless, a peace with Syria would be desirable if it resulted in a Syrian change of attitude regarding that country's support of terrorism, and Syria presumably won't agree to peace with Israel without regaining the Golan.
On a media bias point, the Times in this story again referred to a member of the ISM as a peace activist, without quotation marks. I sent an e-mail to the Times' new ombudsman about this practice the other day and am still awaiting a reply. We'll see if I get one.
|